The Young Turk's Top 100 Films - Revised

That explains it.

Go even further, renounce Kurosawa, or dare I say it... Ozu *gasp*

__________________
p e a c e a n d l o v e : - )

I am interested in his adaptation of Oedipus Rex mostly, and of course I need to see Salo. Maybe his intense left-wing approach will draw me over to the hippy side and we can all read women's lib pamphlets while we smoke the marijuana.

It seems to me that he simply purified it to a list that is politically correct according to his personal standards, because he probably believes that he somehow found a new, more morally appropriate way of looking at things.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

No, I just y'know, have political beliefs, and if you disagree with them that is great, but it isn't your list. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, yes my view on art is conservative, but that's about the only thing that is.

This is kind of like saying you hate Citizen Kane because your dad hit you with a rolled up newspaper.

No it's kind of like saying personal experience is taken into account when measuring someone's reaction, or are you one of those guys that thinks people who watch Natural Born Killers are murderers?

Vertigo is a disgusting piece of misogynistic trash that reduces women to sex objects, I much prefer that deeply profound character study that deals with dark themes of obsession, Nymphomaniac.

Nymphomaniac is actually one of the most strongly feminist films out there, it doesn't reduce women to this innocent stereotype, it actually takes into account that women are human.

I think Vertigo takes into account that men are human too.

As does every other film ever made.

What I mean is, that isn't special, a film treating a woman as human is.

Good point. I hate every film ever.

Huh? This question is totally backwards. I'm not the one conflating morality and art. This is the kind of question I should be asking you.

That's fine--you'll notice I haven't actually argued with his exclusion from the list. I've argue with the reasoning given, which suggests that it has something to do with his films and/or influence, when it's pretty clear it's neither. Ditto for you disliking Kazan because you like unions. These reasons are your prerogative, but you initially represented them as if they were about the films themselves, when it's quite clear now that they aren't.

I believe the person is reflected in their art, therefore neither am I.

This is kind of arbitrary, isn't it? If a film by a director you don't like shows flawed women, it's misogynistic. If a film by a director you do like shows flawed women, it's showing that they're "human."

Also, how do you square your conflation of the personal and artistic with a guy like von Trier, and his history of offensive statements?

I have no idea what this means.

To be fair, Hitler wasn't a misogynist.

1. Hitchcock did not show flawed women, he flawed the women.
2. von Trier's controversy was massively blown out of proportion.

Basically I answered a question and you've taken it out of context.